Don't rewrite the books, just rewrite the titles
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The English Riviera
Re: The difference between HAVE and OF
^^^You amuse me by talking of pedantry, and then go on to do exactly that. Whether it was intentional or not, I don't know. If it was, it suggests an element of irony was intended. If that was the plan, it didn't work.
You're picking the thread starter up on his use of words such as "dumb", "prick" and "little", ignoring the context they were meant in. Everyone's well aware of what the true/original meanings of the words are, but over time they've come to mean more than just one thing, as with most words, even if they are still considered slang. Taking the word "dumb" as an example, its true meaning (the inability to speak) has been overtaken by its other meaning, "stupid". It's completely acceptable to use it in that context.
You also pick him up on refering to people as "uneducated bastards". That's a bit of a funny one too, as you again take the word "bastard" to mean it's literal meaning, illigitimacy. Again, it being used as an insult is now more commonly regarded than its original meaning, so there's nothing wrong with what he's written there, either.
Lastly, I see you point out there's a difference between being lazy and uneducated. Good spot, ten out of ten for observation. But what's it got to do with anything? Laziness isn't an excuse for poor grammar. It's arguably not even related to it. Grammar, like spelling, should be second nature in most aspects, which means laziness is not an excuse for it being sub-par. Therefore, it is logical to assume that in most cases (not all, admittedly) a lack of understanding is to blame, which suggests a lack of education on the matter.
I'm not saying there's nothing wrong, grammatically, with the first post in this thread. Nitemare pointed out most of it in his post. There are, however, fewer gaping holes than in your post.
Flash is back.